“How can we accept the oaths of unbelievers?” he did not object to their saying this. Thus, it is clear that claims differ in this respect. I know of no disagreement concerning this category: namely, that the defendant’s word is accepted under oath if the claimant produces no legally valid proof—that is, evidence.

Evidence constituting legally valid proof may consist of two upright male witnesses, or one man and two women. It may consist of four witnesses, or, according to some scholars among the followers of Ahmad and some followers of al-Shāfi‘ī, three witnesses. The latter concerns a claim of insolvency by someone known to have possessed wealth. For it is reported in Sahīh Muslim, from Qabīsah ibn Mukhāriq al-Hilālī, that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Begging is lawful only for three kinds of men: a man who has assumed a financial liability, for whom begging is lawful until he obtains enough to discharge it, after which he must refrain; a man whose property has been swept away by a calamity, for whom begging is lawful until he obtains enough to sustain himself; and a man afflicted by poverty—once three men of sound judgment from his people come forward and say, ‘So-and-so has indeed been afflicted by poverty,’ begging becomes lawful for him until he obtains enough to sustain himself. Any begging beyond these cases, O Qabīsah, is unlawful gain, which its recipient consumes unlawfully.”

Another reason is that wealth is a hidden matter, giving rise to a strong suspicion that assets are being concealed.

At times, proof consists of one witness together with the claimant’s oath, according to the majority of Muslim jurists among the scholars of the Hijāz and the jurists of hadith.

At times, proof consists of women’s testimony: either one woman, according to Abū Hanīfah and the best-known view reported from Ahmad; two women, according to Mālik and one view reported from Ahmad; or four women, according to al-Shāfi‘ī. At other times, proof takes some other form.